Greetings!

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

And what then of the meaning that a day with the lord is a 1000 years, and a 1000 years a day?

 

@Justus Scientism doesn't define a day as 24 hours. People were using a 24 hour day long before it became an official timestamp because they could observe that the earth rotated once a day... or 24 hours. The fact we came along later and measured that time to 24 hours (rounded) is irrelevant to the topic. The writers of genesis meant day as a day they were used to. Reading meanings into old texts that aren't there is just silly.

 

Heck even creationists will agree that a day means a day in genesis.

 

Why do Christians use a 24 hour long day, when God didnt?

 

[mwc]

     God didn't use a 24 hour day because he hadn't created a watch yet.  As I recall he created a watch and left it in a forest.  Whatever the case that's when days were reckoned this way.

 

          mwc

 

[Justus]

On 2/4/2019 at 9:16 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

@Justus Scientism doesn't define a day as 24 hours. People were using a 24 hour day long before it became an official timestamp because they could observe that the earth rotated once a day... or 24 hours. The fact we came along later and measured that time to 24 hours (rounded) is irrelevant to the topic. The writers of genesis meant day as a day they were used to. Reading meanings into old texts that aren't there is just silly.

 

And what makes the rotation of the earth distinguishable?  The two great lights?

 

Let's see, is it 24 hours from the evening and the morning?

• And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5

The point that there were two great lights set in the firmament of heaven is taught in John 11:9-10 wherein it is written "Are there not twelve hours in the day?  .  But of course you know that it doesn't take 24 hours for the earth to make one complete rotation right?  Thus, If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But  if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him."  Hence the reason the OP contains the comment that "he stumbled upon this site."

 

However, time is no longer measured by the rotation of the earth but rather by the oscillations of the caesium atom.  

On 2/4/2019 at 9:16 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Heck even creationists will agree that a day means a day in genesis.

 

And they also believe that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day too

 

[midniterider]

https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/nist-time-frequently-asked-questions-faq

 

What are International Atomic Time (TAI) and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)?

International Atomic Time (TAI) is an international time scale that is computed by taking the weighted average of more than 300 atomic clocks. These clocks are located at more than 60 timing laboratories around the world. The most stable clocks receive the most weight in the calculation, but the maximum weight assigned to any clock is limited to A / N, where A = 2.5 and N is the number of clocks. Thus, if N = 300, the maximum weight is 0.83 %. While the stability of TAI is achieved by this weighted average, the accuracy of TAI is derived from data from primary frequency standards, which are clocks built at several national metrology institutes. TAI is computed by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) located near Paris, France.

Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is based on TAI, but it is adjusted by leap seconds to account for the difference between the definition of the second and the rotation of Earth. This correction keeps UTC in conjunction with the apparent position of the Sun and the stars, and it is the standard used for all general timekeeping applications. We publish the current difference between UTC and TAI in our Time Scale Data and Bulletin Archive.

[midniterider]

You would think though, that Jesus would be Justus' timekeeper, not a radioactive chemical from our fallen world.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

But of course you know that it doesn't take 24 hours for the earth to make one complete rotation right? 

 

Sorry, 23 hours, 56 minutes. Heck would you like the exact seconds? I knew that, I really didn't think you'd be so silly as split hairs over 4 minutes.... apparently I was wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Justus said:

The point that there were two great lights set in the firmament of heaven...

 

So while you are getting picky ant a few minutes of earths rotation which for convenience we round to 24 hours, you missed the fact that apparently God doesn't know the moon is not a light. It has no light of its own. It's a hunk of rock that reflects sunlight. Apparently the inspired authors didn't know that, and you cannot blame them... apart from apparently God inspired their words.

 

"God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." Gen 1:16

 

They also forgot to mention the blackholes, supernovas, galaxies, that make up the universe... because again they were only going by what they could observe and then making up the rest.. and getting much of it wrong.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

And what makes the rotation of the earth distinguishable?  The two great lights?

 

Let's see, is it 24 hours from the evening and the morning?

• And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5

The point that there were two great lights set in the firmament of heaven is taught in John 11:9-10 wherein it is written "Are there not twelve hours in the day?  .  But of course you know that it doesn't take 24 hours for the earth to make one complete rotation right?  Thus, If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But  if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him."  Hence the reason the OP contains the comment that "he stumbled upon this site."

 

However, time is no longer measured by the rotation of the earth but rather by the oscillations of the caesium atom.  

 

And they also believe that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day too

 

A young boy once came upon an old man stooped over in a field.  When questioned as to his purpose there, the old man said he was looking for a key.  The key, he said, would open a chest filled with riches and great wealth.  The young boy began searching for the key also.  The boy's father happened by, and after making similar queries concerning the old man's quest, also began helping to find the key.  A few local villagers came upon the scene; and swiftly were also engaged in pursuit of finding the key.  After many hours of searching, the boy's father asked the old man, "Are you sure this was the field you lost the key in?"

 

The old man replied, "No.  I lost the key somewhere in my house."

 

Incredulous, the father inquired, "If you lost the key at your house, why are we all searching for it in this field?!?"

 

To which the old man retorted, "There aren't any candles at my house; it's much too dark to look for it there."

 

 

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Sorry, 23 hours, 56 minutes. Heck would you like the exact seconds? I knew that, I really didn't think you'd be so silly as split hairs over 4 minutes.... apparently I was wrong.

 

 

So while you are getting picky ant a few minutes of earths rotation which for convenience we round to 24 hours, you missed the fact that apparently God doesn't know the moon is not a light. It has no light of its own. It's a hunk of rock that reflects sunlight. Apparently the inspired authors didn't know that, and you cannot blame them... apart from apparently God inspired their words.

 

"God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." Gen 1:16

 

They also forgot to mention the blackholes, supernovas, galaxies, that make up the universe... because again they were only going by what they could observe and then making up the rest.. and getting much of it wrong.

 

An interesting issue arises when comparing current scientific cosmology and astronomy with Biblical cosmology and astronomy:

 

1)  Genesis claims there was water on the 1st day.  Genesis also claims the stars (and the sun, which is a star) were created on the 4th day.

 

2)  Science says water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen (H²O).  Science says oxygen (and all elements heavier that lithium) only form from nucleosynthesis within stars.

 

Query:  Where did the oxygen come from to form the water that allegedly existed on the 1st day when the stars that form oxygen were not created until the 4th day?

 

At most, alI have ever received from Biblical creationists are ad hoc and quite twisted apologetics, some of them quite amusing.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Magic.

[sdelsolray]

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Magic.

 

Well, this is not a twisted or entertaining apologetic.  It's a lazy apologetic.  Try harder.

 

[TruthSeeker0]

19 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Well, this is not a twisted or entertaining apologetic.  It's a lazy apologetic.  Try harder.

 

That's where the "science is a religion" or "science is all wrong" explanations conveniently come in.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

21 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Well, this is not a twisted or entertaining apologetic.  It's a lazy apologetic.  Try harder.

 

Magic because god.

[Joshpantera]

@Justus

 

The bronze age priests responsible for writing Genesis 1 (likely as a take off of the Enuma Elish creation myth) were apparently using it as a way of crafting an explanation for how the jewish sabbaths came to be, more to the point. It's different than the older creation myth in Genesis 2. And it pairs 3 days of creating environments for things to inhabit, with three corresponding days of creating things to inhabit the environments. With a rest at the end to explain the jewish sabbath. 

 

1) heavens (habitat) > corresponds to > 4) sun, moon and stars (inhabitants) 

 

2) sea and air separated (habitat's) > corresponds to > 5) fish and birds (inhabitants) 

 

3) dry land with grass (habitat) > corresponds to > 6) land animals and man (inhabitants) 

 

7) sabbath

 

Genesis 1 is clearly NOT a credible explanation for how the earth came to be, how the celestial objects came to be, how water, air and land came to be, nor how animals came to be. And most importantly, it's clearly NOT a credible explanation for how MANKIND came to be. That's the important take away here, Justus. It may have been many things, but an actual explanation for physical reality it is clearly not. 

 

This is a mythology crafted by human beings, not some live news coverage from the dawn of creation, obviously. And it's not any type of working hypothesis or theory to be placed on par with any modern scientific ones. It's just mythology, that's it. It makes no sense to even get into what they meant by "days," because the whole thing just folds any which way it's spun. The day's are mythological days, simply put. They have no basis in reality. And the harder an apologist tries to dig out of that hole, the deeper the hole will become - based on my own experience with questioning them. Any of them, fundamental literalists, liberals, or quasi-christian New Age thinkers or whoever else takes on the problem. The excuses start out bad and then get worse and worse as they go along. 

 

See what happens if you try and get out of the contradictions in Genesis 1 - 2.  

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

11 hours ago, Justus said:

 

And what makes the rotation of the earth distinguishable?  The two great lights?

 

Let's see, is it 24 hours from the evening and the morning?

• And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5

     God is a very confusing thing.  He does creates light and separates it from the darkness.  This is called day and night.  But, later, he creates the sun and the moon and these separate the light and darkness.

 

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵ And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[ ...]

¹⁴ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

¹⁵ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

¹⁶ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

¹⁷ And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

¹⁸ And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

     Not only are light and darkness divided twice, by two different means, but the moon is mentioned to rule the night.  We know the moon isn't always out at night and when it is it isn't always full.  A minor nit I suppose but since it mentions that these things would be used for signs, seasons, days and years but omits months, in which the moon would play an important role, it seems like something to point out.  Weeks aren't mentioned here either but it could be argued that they're developed in the next chapter.

 

     It appears the author wants to give them a role as major and minor light sources.  This works well for the sun.  The day would be the absence of dark.  It is the separation of light and darkness were talking about after all.  But night is the darkness.  So we have the light, the day, which is the sun.  The flip side to this is the dark, the night which is the moon which just happens to also be a form of light.  Just a lessor light (which waxes and wanes and is sometimes dark which is what it should always be for this to works properly).  What this means is the darkness and the light are never really, truly, separated.  There's really just a time of more light and less light.

 

11 hours ago, Justus said:

The point that there were two great lights set in the firmament of heaven is taught in John 11:9-10 wherein it is written "Are there not twelve hours in the day?  .  But of course you know that it doesn't take 24 hours for the earth to make one complete rotation right?  Thus, If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But  if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him."  Hence the reason the OP contains the comment that "he stumbled upon this site."

     Their hours were different from our hours.  They always had 12 hours in a day regardless of the length of day.  It was simply the time from sunrise to sunset divided into 12 "hour" segments.  Until the time they could come up with a way of measuring time after dark they just divided the night into any number of systems but in this case (the Roman era) they would have used something like watches.  Basically they divided the night roughly into quarters so there wasn't 12 hours in the night nor were there 24 hours in a day.  Once they did start using hours to measure time at night they used the same system they used for the day, so 12 "hours" for night, and the 24 hour day was born.

 

11 hours ago, Justus said:

However, time is no longer measured by the rotation of the earth but rather by the oscillations of the caesium atom.  

     Not entirely true. We measure time in all sorts of ways.  Atomic clocks are one way of measuring time.  However, a daily calendar is another way of measuring time.  If any of the ways we measure time get out of sync with our perception of reality we tend to make adjustments to our measurements of time as opposed to making adjustments to our view of reality.  An example of this would be a solar calendar versus a lunar calendar.  We know both are in use today and most people prefer the solar calendar and that view of reality to the lunar calendar and that view of reality for a variety of reasons (ie. seasonal drift, etc.).  If we move atomic clocks they drift thanks to relativity.  So they cease to fit our reality.  We don't adjust to them we adjust them to suit us and the rotation of the Earth.

 

          mwc

 

[Aries256]

I bet I would get banned from there in 5 mins. 

[Justus]

4 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Science says oxygen (and all elements heavier that lithium) only form from nucleosynthesis within stars.

 

 

I would ask how stars were formed in the vacuum of space, seeing that a vacuum is void of matter.   But the redneck professor already answered that question.

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Magic.

 

While the song 'We Are Stardust" is a catchy tune, yet what's the difference between being formed from the dust of the ground and being formed by star dust?  

 

So how many hydrogen atoms were destroyed in the making of an oxygen atom? 

 

Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

 

5 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Query:  Where did the oxygen come from to form the water that allegedly existed on the 1st day when the stars that form oxygen were not created until the 4th day?

 

 

Well, if you believe the stars were created on the 4th day then I am sure it would be a waste of my time to explain something to someone who doesn't even believe what they claim they believe.

 

 

[disillusioned]

This guy.

[sdelsolray]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Magic because god.

 

This is a much better apologetic...so deep, verifiable and explanatory.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Justus said:

what's the difference between being formed from the dust of the ground and being formed by star dust?  

I think one of the things some of the others have been trying to explain, and you either aren't getting or not admitting that you are getting, is that the dust of the ground is star dust, because all of the elements in observed nature originated from the reactions within stars.  So, to answer your question, which is improperly framed, by the way, there is no difference.

[TruthSeeker0]

I'm so glad I don't need to take science and force it to square with it a centuries old fairy tale. I get a headache just thinking about it.

[midniterider]

How come believers have to do the talking for Jebus?

[Joshpantera]

On 2/7/2019 at 12:15 PM, midniterider said:

How come believers have to do the talking for Jebus?

 

And go to great lengths and jump through many hoops in order to attempt to do so? 

 

A ) All knowing god somehow misses the fact that he's inspiring bronze age priests to draft contradictory myths which he already knows future generations of believers will be unable to defend or make any sense of. Questioning his all knowing-ness. 

 

B ) All knowing god somehow purposefully inspired bronze age priests to incorrectly describe creation on purpose, willfully hanging up his own apologist's of the future with untenable foundations. So they'll always, no matter what, turn out completely wrong in the end. The god knows all, but misleads his followers on purpose. 

 

C ) All knowing god had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Bronze age priests write about their own thoughts and feelings, call it god, which turn out to be completely untenable with respect to reality. And future generations of apologist's are stuck with the dead weight that the bronze age priests left them with. The god doesn't exist, so doesn't know anything and didn't inspire anything at all. 

 

It seems to me that C is the most obvious answer as to why believer's have to do all the talking for YHWH or Jebus, they always have. It's always been make believe. Making a more fitting title of "make believers." Maybe in time people will simply ask, 'so, are you a make believer or a non-make believer?' 

[sdelsolray]

 

21 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

...Query:  Where did the oxygen come from to form the water that allegedly existed on the 1st day when the stars that form oxygen were not created until the 4th day?

...

 

 

9 hours ago, Justus said:

 

...

Well, if you believe the stars were created on the 4th day then I am sure it would be a waste of my time to explain something to someone who doesn't even believe what they claim they believe.

 

 

 

In rational discourse, it is common for someone to assume certain claims as true for the purpose of furthering discussion.  Here, I am assuming the Genesis account is correct, compare it to scientific understanding, which I am also assuming to be correct for purposes of discussion, and ask about the contradiction between the Genesis account and the relevant science.

 

Please feel free to solve this issue for everyone by taking "my time to explain" (your words).  You apparently have it all figured out.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I wonder if christfuckems would be pleased at how this thread of his has turned out.

[Joshpantera]